Travel lenses for the Sony a7 r2

[Darren Pearson]

If you can't get the job done in "travel photography" with just the A7R2 + 35mm F2.8 you are not much of a photographer























--
Byron Bay, NSW, Australia

http://gallery.me.com/dp1975

 

[Abrak]

Well of course, the A7rii doesnt really save much weight over the Canon 6D - it does save size.

My first two lenses would be:

16-35 f4 (very difficult to justify the 2.8 in terms of weight and size savings relative to quality)

Batis 85 1.8 as a quasi 70-200 zoom on the basis that with the A7rii you still get 16mp at 200mm

My third lens would be a smallish and fastish prime that can form into a small package that really takes advantage of the smaller A7rii body. For me that would be the 28 f2,

 

[BBQue]

Well of course, the A7rii doesnt really save much weight over the Canon 6D - it does save size.

My first two lenses would be:

16-35 f4 (very difficult to justify the 2.8 in terms of weight and size savings relative to quality)

Batis 85 1.8 as a quasi 70-200 zoom on the basis that with the A7rii you still get 16mp at 200mm

My third lens would be a smallish and fastish prime that can form into a small package that really takes advantage of the smaller A7rii body. For me that would be the 28 f2,

--
http://www.salintara.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcoll/

Or Loxia 21 - FE28 - FE55 - Batis 85

For a SINGLE-DO-ALL travel lens, the FE35/2.8 is hard to beat though.

 

[DFPanno]

If you can't get the job done in "travel photography" with just the A7R2 + 35mm F2.8 you are not much of a photographer

--
Byron Bay, NSW, Australia
http://gallery.me.com/dp1975

None of the above are what I would call travel images.

They look like basic family snapshots.

35mm is often too tight for real travel work.



--
¡Viva la Resolución!

David Francis Panno

Explore David Francis Panno’s 1,779 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

flickrhivemind.net

Diese Domain steht zum Verkauf!

flickrhivemind.net

Flickriver: David F. Panno's most interesting photos

Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...

www.flickriver.com

(On Flickriver check "Scale to Fit Screen" in the upper left drop-down menu)

 

[DFPanno]

How do you intend to carry your gear?

It makes a big difference.

I carry an A7R II with a 24-70 GM in the swing bag in a Mindshift Rotation Horizon bag.

I have a second body with the 16-35/4 in one of the back compartments or on a Peak Design clip on a shoulder strap.

With a back-pack there is no problem carrying that gear but I would be miserable with the same set-up and a messenger bag.

I also do a lot of imaging with a RX100 V as the IQ is very good and I can keep it in my hand all day; ready for a grab shot when needed.

The A7R IIs come out for special shots.

Again the 24-70 GM and the 16-35 GM would be great travel lenses if you carry them in a way that minimizes the impact of their weight.

 

[BBQue]

None of the above are what I would call travel images.

They look like basic family snapshots.

35mm is often too tight for real travel work.

Why? It is a mixture of scenery and portraits, just what you expect on a (family) vacation. And shows that 35mm is adequate for most purposes.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable with two lenses (FE28 plus FE55) for even more variety, but I have traveled to Spain with nothing but FE35/2.8 on my A7ii.

For wider landscapes or cityscapes one can always stitch.

 

[DFPanno]

None of the above are what I would call travel images.

They look like basic family snapshots.

35mm is often too tight for real travel work.

Why? It is a mixture of scenery and portraits, just what you expect on a (family) vacation. And shows that 35mm is adequate for most purposes.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable with two lenses (FE28 plus FE55) for even more variety, but I have traveled to Spain with nothing but FE35/2.8 on my A7ii.

For wider landscapes or cityscapes one can always stitch.

"Family vacation pics" and "travel photography" mean very different things to me.

If the full range of images that one desires can be satisfied with a 35 2.8 then that's the lens that one should use.

Trying to capture the essence of El Escorial with a 35 would be an excercise on frustration for me.

One can't always stitch. If fact stitching is only appropriate if a certain set of factors are in place.

But; to each his own.

 

[BBQue]

None of the above are what I would call travel images.

They look like basic family snapshots.

35mm is often too tight for real travel work.

Why? It is a mixture of scenery and portraits, just what you expect on a (family) vacation. And shows that 35mm is adequate for most purposes.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable with two lenses (FE28 plus FE55) for even more variety, but I have traveled to Spain with nothing but FE35/2.8 on my A7ii.

For wider landscapes or cityscapes one can always stitch.

"Family vacation pics" and "travel photography" mean very different things to me.

If the full range of images that one desires can be satisfied with a 35 2.8 then that's the lens that one should use.

Trying to capture the essence of El Escorial with a 35 would be an excercise on frustration for me.

No argument here - to capture the essence of El Escorial or Sagrada Famila or all the other magnificent edifices will require more than just a 35mm lens. My first choice would then be the new 12-24mm lens, plus a variety of primes to capture details.

 

[Darren Pearson]

If you can't get the job done in "travel photography" with just the A7R2 + 35mm F2.8 you are not much of a photographer









--
Byron Bay, NSW, Australia
http://gallery.me.com/dp1975

None of the above are what I would call travel images.

They look like basic family snapshots.

35mm is often too tight for real travel work.

--
¡Viva la Resolución!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfpanno/
http://flickrhivemind.net/User/David F. Panno/Interesting
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/dfpanno/popular-interesting/
(On Flickriver check "Scale to Fit Screen" in the upper left drop-down menu)

I only chose those images to show that the little 35mm at 120g is extremely versatile for almost any travel photography short of extreme examples. Cant capture the Sagrada Famila? it also not going to be much use on the Serengeti plains shooting lions either.

"None of the above are what I would call travel images" Really?

Pic 1 - World Heritage listed Mossman Gorge in tropical far North Queensland in Australia

Pic 2 - Example of its portrait ability, shot in Toronto, Canada on a 4 week trip approximately 15,000km from where I live.

Pic 3 - Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum again 15,000km from home.

Pic 4 - Bali, Indonesia. Example of low light ability. 5,000km from home

The OP was asking "in the interests of saving weight on a 4 month trip" and "this trip will be China - Mongolia - Russia - Iceland... UK, SA". I was pointing out that you can document your travels with extremely high IQ, easily with the A7R2 + 35mm F2.8 while carrying FAR less weight than with almost any other setup.

And if you want some "Travel Photography" see a few of mine below (most are before I went Sony). Or are these still just "basic family snapshots" to you?


Rome, Italy


Lijiang, China


Ubud, Indonesia


Tegalalang, Bali


Samburu, Kenya


Tanna, Vanuatu


Wales, UK


Boracay, Philippines.


Byron Bay, Australia.


London, UK


Paris, France


Serengetti, Tanzania


Masai Mara, Kenya

--
Byron Bay, NSW, Australia

http://gallery.me.com/dp1975

 

[DFPanno]

If you can't get the job done in "travel photography" with just the A7R2 + 35mm F2.8 you are not much of a photographer









--
Byron Bay, NSW, Australia
http://gallery.me.com/dp1975

None of the above are what I would call travel images.

They look like basic family snapshots.

35mm is often too tight for real travel work.

--
¡Viva la Resolución!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfpanno/
http://flickrhivemind.net/User/David F. Panno/Interesting
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/dfpanno/popular-interesting/
(On Flickriver check "Scale to Fit Screen" in the upper left drop-down menu)

I only chose those images to show that the little 35mm at 120g is extremely versatile for almost any travel photography short of extreme examples. Cant capture the Sagrada Famila? it also not going to be much use on the Serengeti plains shooting lions either.

"None of the above are what I would call travel images" Really?

Pic 1 - World Heritage listed Mossman Gorge in tropical far North Queensland in Australia

Pic 2 - Example of its portrait ability, shot in Toronto, Canada on a 4 week trip approximately 15,000km from where I live.

Pic 3 - Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum again 15,000km from home.

Pic 4 - Bali, Indonesia. Example of low light ability. 5,000km from home

The OP was asking "in the interests of saving weight on a 4 month trip" and "this trip will be China - Mongolia - Russia - Iceland... UK, SA". I was pointing out that you can document your travels with extremely high IQ, easily with the A7R2 + 35mm F2.8 while carrying FAR less weight than with almost any other setup.

And if you want some "Travel Photography" see a few of mine below (most are before I went Sony). Or are these still just "basic family snapshots" to you?


Rome, Italy


Lijiang, China


Ubud, Indonesia


Tegalalang, Bali


Samburu, Kenya


Tanna, Vanuatu


Wales, UK


Boracay, Philippines.


Byron Bay, Australia.


London, UK


Paris, France


Serengetti, Tanzania


Masai Mara, Kenya

--
Byron Bay, NSW, Australia
http://gallery.me.com/dp1975

I doubt that most people would factor "miles from home" in what constitutes "travel photography"

In any case; you made a big statment -

"If you can't get the job done in "travel photography" with just the A7R2 + 35mm F2.8 you are not much of a photographer".

Yet many of your images were shot at wider focal lengths....

Fact is one cannot get a lot of the desired "travel shots" with just a 35 whether or not one is "not much of a photographer".

That's my point.



--
¡Viva la Resolución!

David Francis Panno

Explore David Francis Panno’s 1,779 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

flickrhivemind.net

Diese Domain steht zum Verkauf!

flickrhivemind.net

Flickriver: David F. Panno's most interesting photos

Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...

www.flickriver.com

(On Flickriver check "Scale to Fit Screen" in the upper left drop-down menu)

 

[Philnw2]

Just because the 35 suits you doesn't mean it suits everyone as a single travel lens. As a former president of a photography club and a current board member of a gallery, i can tell you that artists vary enormously in their vision and style. Its all good, diversity is healthy and fascinating. Uniformity is boring, frankly.

 

[PWPhotography]

16-35 either f/4.0 or f2.8 is wonderful, highly recommended. Sometime I also carried EF 24-70L/2.8 II (or FE 24-70 GM) but usually one of these two.

I always carried FE 70-200G/4.0 (or Canon version in the past) that mounted on second body (A7 II in this case). For architecture I also carried 17L TS-E, a bulky lens however. Then FE 55/1.8 sits between.

I am very interested in the new FE 12-24G that complements 24-70 very well and potentially also replace 17L TS-E and 16-35/4.0 zoom.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
http://pwphotography.zenfolio.com

 

[Davidn19]

thanks for the feedback - i am definitely trying to err on the reductive side. I think I will go with the 35mm, 16-35 and possibly the 85mm depending on how I feel. Gives me a level of comfort and nice and light. I certainly wont be carrying them all with me, but I want to wider 16-35 for Mongolian Steppe and mountain landscapes.

Now if anyone knows of a perfect camera bag anywhere.....

 

[Mike99999]

Hey all

in the interests of saving weight on a 4 month trip, and encouraging me to use my camera more, I'm selling my Canon 6d and replacing with a Sony A7rii.

In the interests of optimising my purchase, I'm thinking of adding the 16-35mm F2.8, and using my Canon 50mm 1.8 with the fotodiox converter to cover my prime needs. (I also have a 28mm canon that apparently works well if I need it, but I figure the 16-35 will cover that.) I'm happy with the width I'll get from the above, and I want to avoid carrying too many lenses.

Most of my photography is landscape, or city based - this trip will be China - Mongolia - Russia - Iceland - A bit of the UK and potentially some South America.

I'll happily take advice and feedback on the above set up, but I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks I'll need anything longer, and if the Canon will do the job. I have a Canon 70-300 L F4 but not keen on carrying it for the weight. Have thought about the 24-70 F4, but it doesn't get great reviews, and I wonder how often I'd actually use it. Similar the 85mm 1.8. I definitely don't want any more than 3 lenses to confuse me.

Input gladly received. Cheers

Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 covers 90% of my travel needs.

Have you considered replacing your Canon with the Sony 70-300?

 

[SafariBob]

To me a travel that tops out at 50 is a bit limiting. Doable, but not ideal. Some travel combos I like:

16-35 + 70-300/400

24-105 + 28 f2 or 35f28

24-240+ 28/35

 

[freakmax]

For me , either Batis 25 or FE28-70 for travel.

 

[Dkingtorres]

Batis 25 + Sony FE 55 1.8. Both are superb, fast lenses, small, light and you have all advantages of shoot with a fixed focal.

 

[BBQue]

thanks for the feedback - i am definitely trying to err on the reductive side. I think I will go with the 35mm, 16-35 and possibly the 85mm depending on how I feel. Gives me a level of comfort and nice and light. I certainly wont be carrying them all with me, but I want to wider 16-35 for Mongolian Steppe and mountain landscapes.

Now if anyone knows of a perfect camera bag anywhere.....

Since 35mm is already covered by your prime, you may want to consider the 12-24 instead of the 16-35 for the Mongolian Steppe.

 

[Dan_168]

Hey all

in the interests of saving weight on a 4 month trip, and encouraging me to use my camera more, I'm selling my Canon 6d and replacing with a Sony A7rii.

In the interests of optimising my purchase, I'm thinking of adding the 16-35mm F2.8, and using my Canon 50mm 1.8 with the fotodiox converter to cover my prime needs. (I also have a 28mm canon that apparently works well if I need it, but I figure the 16-35 will cover that.) I'm happy with the width I'll get from the above, and I want to avoid carrying too many lenses.

Most of my photography is landscape, or city based - this trip will be China - Mongolia - Russia - Iceland - A bit of the UK and potentially some South America.

I'll happily take advice and feedback on the above set up, but I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks I'll need anything longer, and if the Canon will do the job. I have a Canon 70-300 L F4 but not keen on carrying it for the weight. Have thought about the 24-70 F4, but it doesn't get great reviews, and I wonder how often I'd actually use it. Similar the 85mm 1.8. I definitely don't want any more than 3 lenses to confuse me.

Input gladly received. Cheers

I was just about to suggest the few G master zoom lens, because I do consider them good travel lens, for both their zoom flexibility and prime like optic quality. then I read you consider 6D and 70-300 F4 L heavy and big then changed my recommendation to 16-35 F4, 24-70/F4, 28/F2, 35/F2.8, 50 1.8 or 85 1.8.

I am no big fan of either 16-35 F4 and 24-70 F4 at all, but they are much smaller and lighter than their G master counter part, so if weight and size is that big of deal then you will just have to give up some quality. you know, small and light lens don't normally have the best optic quality, you just have to decide how much you are willing to give up. everyone has different standard so no one can give you a good answer there. and in my own case I am not willing to give us " this much" for little weight saving, yes, I consider GM perfectly fine for travel and hiking, I am not climbing Himalaya.

if you also like prime lens, into the Voigtlander 10, 12, 15, Sony 28/2 35 F2.8, also really small and light, not the best lens money can buy when it comes to optic quality either but all pretty decent. or put it this way, they are not any worse than that 50 F1.8 you have if you are already happy with quality of the 501.8.

One more thought, how about a a Micro Four Third camera? it's even smaller, the OM-D E-M10 II with pancake kit lens 14-42 is only $599, and $499 body only, a friend of mine just placed a order this morning after seeing the result from our last trip, to complement his D5 and 810 when he is not doing paid job on vacation. And you would be surprised to see that little camera can provide some pretty decent image quality, not as bad as some would think just because it has a such tiny sensor. here is one sample I have from last week's trip to Colorado, I use my other friend's E-M5 II with the kit lens to get this. the E-M10 II has exact same sensor, we just did a 24 inch metal print and it looks pretty cool.

 

[MattPointZero]

I think on a trip that extensive (and exhausting) you are crazy taking a bunch of extra lenses/bodies/weight.

Sony A7R2 + Sony 35mm F2.8 ............. aaaaaaaaaaand nothing else.

Body 625 g + lens 120g

Sony 42mp, BSE sensor, FF body with a super sharp fast prime at under 800g. Nothing under that size & weight will produce better IQ.

FF 35mm is just wide enough for landscape, and just wide enough for portraiture, just fast enough for low light and stupid light.

No changing lenses, no carrying excess weight, no having the wrong lens on when you need it etc, etc. Just shoot and have fun.